It's not a big news item, but it's an item just the same, and one that caught my eye in particular for this one guy's quote.
Santago Arias, technical director of Torresol Energy in Spain, said "It is the first station in the world that works 24 hours a day, a solar power station that works day and night!" He's right in the details - it is indeed the first solar power station that works 'round the clock. But the first solar power station that could keep working beyond sunset was right here in the US: Solar Two, converted from its predecessor Solar One.
Mr. Arias is talking about the Gemasolar station, a huge (about 3/4 of a square mile of collecting area) installation that bounces sunlight from a tremendous array of flat mirrors, up to a single receiving collector on a tower in the center of the array. Needless to say, the temperatures generated at the receiving station are tremendous. The receiver dumps all that heat into circulating heat transfer fluid (maybe water, not sure), which in turn heats water to generate steam to operate power generating turbines.
But how does it operate during the night?
Easy. You can't store AC electricity. You CAN store heat. In this case, the excess heat from the system is dumped into gigantic vats of molten salts. The salts absorb a staggering amount of heat energy by melting from a solid to a liquid state - the change of phase in itself absorbs a lot of energy, and releases it right back again when it changes back from a liquid to a solid. And after the sun goes down the heat collector in the middle of the mirror field is out of the loop; the transfer loop that was dumping heat into the salt vats earlier is now picking up heat from the salt vats, and conveying it to the steam turbines. The steam turbines just keep working. Stored heat, generated heat, it's all the same to them. They just work.
But it's not entirely the first of its kind. Let's talk about Solar Two.
Solar Two was Solar One for a while, but was expanded and added storage capacity and an integer to its name. By adding storage capacity - the same molten salt scheme as Gemasolar is using - Solar Two in Barstow CA was able to keep operating as much as three hours after sundown. The salt tanks also kept the plant operating at full capacity through periods of cloudiness, a big boon to be sure.
Now let's talk a little about why that's such a big boon. The national electrical grid is kind of fragile. It's designed to do one thing: deliver power from the generators to the consumers. One thing it doesn't do is respond quickly to changes. California has discovered just how difficult that makes things, having suffered the brunt of manufactured shortages via Enron, and discovered that the existing grid cannot easily handle added loads. That's why it makes you such a popular customer in California if you sign up with the utility's "smart" or "responsive" grid program, which gives the utility the capacity to reduce or even turn your power off during high-usage periods. You get a nicer rate on your bill for being willing to be in the dark for a while when the temperature spikes.
That responsive grid is part of what the issue is. Solar and wind, they're a little sketchy. They come and go. The sun's output is at least predictable in that we know to the minute when the sun will come up, and we have a good idea of what the weather will be. But wind, well. That's even less reliable than the sun. It might blow, it might not. You might have years of data saying that there's an average wind speed of thus-and-such many miles per hour per day at one location, but that doesn't tell you anything about today.
The storage-enhanced solar plant is everything you could hope it would be. It's power 'round the clock. Where I live there's a big coal-fired plant down the road that's running 'round the clock, and a medium-small hydroelectric dam running 'round the clock. But the coal plant contributes to acid rain, which is Bad. The dam is continually drawing down on the lake, which for every extra foot of depth generates about an extra million dollars per week in revenue. Losing the depth is Bad. How then, if we could have a gigantic structure somewhere that reaped the sunlight and converted that into energy and also set some aside for use all night long? Then we could close the dam's gates for a few hours and gain some depth. We could leave the coal plant off for a few hours, just ticking over, ready to fire up to full power to generate a surge of power if needed. How about we make the renewable, freely falling sunlight the steady-state power source, and have the dirty or detractive technologies on standby?
Or we have big enough solar storage that the storage is the standby, and we can close the coal plant entirely? That would be cool.
It wouldn't even have to put all those coal plant workers out of business. The technology on the turbine side is exactly the same, half those guys working at the coal plant could be lifted out of the coal plant, dropped into the solar plant, and know exactly what was what, and work effectively with minimal retraining, if any.
The coal miners might complain. They could get work reconstructing all those mountaintops back to where they belong. Then they could get jobs levelling landfills and whatnot into solar reflector fields.
Just a few thoughts. A big solar plant like Spain's takes up almost a square mile, but what if you don't make it contiguous? What if there's a patch of reflectors here and a few more over there and another batch on top of the new Wal-Mart? Give up a few percentage points of efficiency, but you put the power close to where it's going to be used.
Monday, March 19, 2012
Monday, March 12, 2012
Rush Limbaugh: Shut Him Up, Or Not?
Limbaugh's big mouth is in the news again. We must assume that all of Rush is in the news, because we must assume that his mouth is in fact under his brain's direction, but if it weren't that might explain some things.
The most recent flap is that Rush called law student Sandra Fluke a slut and prostitute. He did this in a contextually iffy way, equating her with a slut or prostitute because, by wanting her insurance provider to also cover contraceptives, she essentially wanted to be paid to have sex.
There are several places you can go to get the whole transcript of what was said. At first I thought, by the tone of all the news reaction, that he must be raving mad, eyes rolling in their sockets, spraying spittle at the microphone and slamming the desk with a big hammy hand. Well, not so. Unfortunately, Rush sounds perfectly rational and reasonable when he says these terrible things.
Ms. Fluke was invited by Democratic members of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to speak at a hearing discussing whether the Obama administration was failing to maintain the separation of church and state. Committee chairman Darrell Issa (R. Calif.) disallowed her attendance on the grounds that she was not a member of clergy, but a speech she delivered at another event was included in the record on the grounds of its relevance to the topic at hand.
At this moment I would like to point out that out of the 40 members on this committee, four are women.
Let's write that really big: only four women on that committee.
From the outset, you can't easily expect that issues of especial concern to women will get a fair shake. Even when Congress has only approximately a 17% female makeup, it barely tops half that on this committee. Talk about oversight. This is an oversight if I ever saw one.
Why is it that Congress's makeup is only 17% female? That's ridiculous. The country is more than 50% female, let's get a few more ladies in here making some decisions. The representation is off by two-thirds.
Anyway, here's where Rush starts to weigh in. Being Rush, he weighs in a lot. Read into that what you will.
Here's the real fly in the ointment: Rush has a point. Fluke undermines her own argument pretty deeply at the outset, stating that many women have to stop using birth control because they can't afford it. Well, having sex is optional. You won't die if you don't have it. And no one should be obligated to help subsidize your sex life: either you can afford to have sex, or you can't. It's up to you to know the difference. Fluke never points these facts out, she mentions the fact that these people are having sex, and points out that their financial situation has indeed caused them to change their behavior, but their change of behavior hasn't been to stop having sex. No, their recourse is the most irresponsible option of all: keep having sex, but now they're also at risk for unintended pregnancies! I'm not going to say anyone who does that is a slut or a prostitute, but I will freely say out loud and in print, they're stupid!
Fluke goes on to describe situations, not all that rare, where contraceptives have medical benefits besides just contraception. That's a perfectly valid defense of expecting contraceptive coverage regardless of religious exhortation. It's not for the purpose of contraception, it's for the health of the women. That's the point where she finds all the bullets in her gun and starts firing for effect.
Rush doesn't mention that part. No, he jumps on her sex statement. Like I said, he's got a point: no one should be expected to subsidize your nooky. You want to play, you got to pay: condoms, sponges, hormone patches, whatever. That, or learn to respond to "mommy" and "daddy." That's how these things work. And if you can't afford any of those things, well, everybody just keep your hands to yourselves and all of your clothes on. That's how these things are prevented from working.
But there's no need to resort to calling names. Especially not insulting, demeaning names. "Slut" is an ugly word no matter how you look at it. It's not something you say to someone you hope to be able to speak nicely to later. "Prostitute" isn't quite so bad but it isn't friendly either. There are no positive connotations associated with "prostitute."
This was the part where Rush shook all the bullets out of his gun and threw it away. It's one thing to be opinionated, it's one thing to be a highly conservative mouthpiece. It's one thing to be considered a brilliant commentator.
And it's a whole 'nother thing to be a jerk. I'm not actually calling Rush a jerk, notice. I'm just saying that it's just awful to display jerk-like behavior. One would hope that the whole thing could be blamed on being blitzed on Oxycodone. But since he keeps submitting clean samples at his random tests, I guess that's not a viable excuse.
So while Rush may have had a point, he went way, way over the line with his commentary. He went from attacking the stance, attacking the issue and its validity, attacking the Obama admiinistration's demand for universal contraception coverage, to attacking the person. Failing to notice that Ms. Fluke never said she herself was having more sex than she could afford, Rush called her names that were entirely unwarranted and unsupportable. Calling insulting names in the first place is immature at best, but when it comes from someone who's supposed to be thinking stuff like this through, it's frankly startling.
He gets even more insulting by suggesting that Ms. Fluke should "give something back" to the American people for subsidizing her sex life: he suggests she become a porn actress. As if his scorn weren't enough, he has to become lewdly ludicrous.
In the wake of this indefensible vitriol, Rush has been losing advertisers left and right, to the point that some segments of his show are even closing with dead air: there are no advertisers at all to fill the slot. There's just silence.
Now the question comes up: should Rush be muzzled? They're asking this very question at such outlets as The Huffington Post and CNN.com - both representatives of the so-called "liberal media" that such conservative mouthpieces as Rush constantly rail against - and defending him. Make no mistake, they call him out as an arrogant bully, but they defend his right to say what he thinks.
And so do I. He has the right to say whatever he wants, no matter how big of a jerk it makes him.
But that doesn't mean anybody has to pay him to say it. Jane Fonda says he should be pulled off the air. She's dead wrong of course, it's not up to her to say that. It's up to everyone, and for the radio network that pays him those big checks to say, "all right, that's enough of you," and can him. Rush shouldn't be fired because of what he said - but if there were something you should be fired for saying, I'd suggest this as a good example - he should be fired for alienating his audience and chasing off the advertisers. That is to say, he's costing his network listeners and revenue. That's the bottom line. When you cost more than you're worth, you're done.
Don't worry, he's both rich and old. He'll be dead before he's poor.
The most recent flap is that Rush called law student Sandra Fluke a slut and prostitute. He did this in a contextually iffy way, equating her with a slut or prostitute because, by wanting her insurance provider to also cover contraceptives, she essentially wanted to be paid to have sex.
There are several places you can go to get the whole transcript of what was said. At first I thought, by the tone of all the news reaction, that he must be raving mad, eyes rolling in their sockets, spraying spittle at the microphone and slamming the desk with a big hammy hand. Well, not so. Unfortunately, Rush sounds perfectly rational and reasonable when he says these terrible things.
Ms. Fluke was invited by Democratic members of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to speak at a hearing discussing whether the Obama administration was failing to maintain the separation of church and state. Committee chairman Darrell Issa (R. Calif.) disallowed her attendance on the grounds that she was not a member of clergy, but a speech she delivered at another event was included in the record on the grounds of its relevance to the topic at hand.
At this moment I would like to point out that out of the 40 members on this committee, four are women.
Let's write that really big: only four women on that committee.
From the outset, you can't easily expect that issues of especial concern to women will get a fair shake. Even when Congress has only approximately a 17% female makeup, it barely tops half that on this committee. Talk about oversight. This is an oversight if I ever saw one.
Why is it that Congress's makeup is only 17% female? That's ridiculous. The country is more than 50% female, let's get a few more ladies in here making some decisions. The representation is off by two-thirds.
Anyway, here's where Rush starts to weigh in. Being Rush, he weighs in a lot. Read into that what you will.
Here's the real fly in the ointment: Rush has a point. Fluke undermines her own argument pretty deeply at the outset, stating that many women have to stop using birth control because they can't afford it. Well, having sex is optional. You won't die if you don't have it. And no one should be obligated to help subsidize your sex life: either you can afford to have sex, or you can't. It's up to you to know the difference. Fluke never points these facts out, she mentions the fact that these people are having sex, and points out that their financial situation has indeed caused them to change their behavior, but their change of behavior hasn't been to stop having sex. No, their recourse is the most irresponsible option of all: keep having sex, but now they're also at risk for unintended pregnancies! I'm not going to say anyone who does that is a slut or a prostitute, but I will freely say out loud and in print, they're stupid!
Fluke goes on to describe situations, not all that rare, where contraceptives have medical benefits besides just contraception. That's a perfectly valid defense of expecting contraceptive coverage regardless of religious exhortation. It's not for the purpose of contraception, it's for the health of the women. That's the point where she finds all the bullets in her gun and starts firing for effect.
Rush doesn't mention that part. No, he jumps on her sex statement. Like I said, he's got a point: no one should be expected to subsidize your nooky. You want to play, you got to pay: condoms, sponges, hormone patches, whatever. That, or learn to respond to "mommy" and "daddy." That's how these things work. And if you can't afford any of those things, well, everybody just keep your hands to yourselves and all of your clothes on. That's how these things are prevented from working.
But there's no need to resort to calling names. Especially not insulting, demeaning names. "Slut" is an ugly word no matter how you look at it. It's not something you say to someone you hope to be able to speak nicely to later. "Prostitute" isn't quite so bad but it isn't friendly either. There are no positive connotations associated with "prostitute."
This was the part where Rush shook all the bullets out of his gun and threw it away. It's one thing to be opinionated, it's one thing to be a highly conservative mouthpiece. It's one thing to be considered a brilliant commentator.
And it's a whole 'nother thing to be a jerk. I'm not actually calling Rush a jerk, notice. I'm just saying that it's just awful to display jerk-like behavior. One would hope that the whole thing could be blamed on being blitzed on Oxycodone. But since he keeps submitting clean samples at his random tests, I guess that's not a viable excuse.
So while Rush may have had a point, he went way, way over the line with his commentary. He went from attacking the stance, attacking the issue and its validity, attacking the Obama admiinistration's demand for universal contraception coverage, to attacking the person. Failing to notice that Ms. Fluke never said she herself was having more sex than she could afford, Rush called her names that were entirely unwarranted and unsupportable. Calling insulting names in the first place is immature at best, but when it comes from someone who's supposed to be thinking stuff like this through, it's frankly startling.
He gets even more insulting by suggesting that Ms. Fluke should "give something back" to the American people for subsidizing her sex life: he suggests she become a porn actress. As if his scorn weren't enough, he has to become lewdly ludicrous.
In the wake of this indefensible vitriol, Rush has been losing advertisers left and right, to the point that some segments of his show are even closing with dead air: there are no advertisers at all to fill the slot. There's just silence.
Now the question comes up: should Rush be muzzled? They're asking this very question at such outlets as The Huffington Post and CNN.com - both representatives of the so-called "liberal media" that such conservative mouthpieces as Rush constantly rail against - and defending him. Make no mistake, they call him out as an arrogant bully, but they defend his right to say what he thinks.
And so do I. He has the right to say whatever he wants, no matter how big of a jerk it makes him.
But that doesn't mean anybody has to pay him to say it. Jane Fonda says he should be pulled off the air. She's dead wrong of course, it's not up to her to say that. It's up to everyone, and for the radio network that pays him those big checks to say, "all right, that's enough of you," and can him. Rush shouldn't be fired because of what he said - but if there were something you should be fired for saying, I'd suggest this as a good example - he should be fired for alienating his audience and chasing off the advertisers. That is to say, he's costing his network listeners and revenue. That's the bottom line. When you cost more than you're worth, you're done.
Don't worry, he's both rich and old. He'll be dead before he's poor.
Monday, February 27, 2012
Helpful Household Hints: Lighting
I heard something about eliminating light bulbs? They're going to outlaw light bulbs?
Nope. That got overturned in Congress late last year. Looks like the light bulb as we grew up with it is still safe...for the moment.
Why ban it? It works, right?
Sure it works, but it doesn't work very well. Ask yourself the question: what do you want the light bulb to do?
I want it to make light. I turn it on, it lights up.
How does it do that?
Um...never really thought about it.
It gets hot. It gets so hot it glows, not just red-hot but white-hot. That's how it works.
And that's why it's so darned hot?
Exactly. But what if you could have the light without the heat?
What about it? Would that be better?
Sure. About three-fourths of the energy emitted by a light bulb is heat, not light. What that means is your light bulb is only about 25% efficient at making electricity into light. That heat is wasted potential, and of course in summertime that means your AC has to work to remove the heat. Using electricity to remove waste heat generated by using other electricity: that's terrible.
We can do better than that. A compact fluorescent lamp - CF for short - gives off about the same amount of light, but only needs 30% of the electricity. Where you need 100 watts of power to make a bright light with an old-fashioned, hot incandescent bulb, you can get the same light from a CF lamp that uses only 30 watts of power. CF lamps get warm, but nowhere near as hot as an incandescent. That 70 watts you don't use doesn't have to get thrown back outside, either.
That's a big savings. Why would anyone ever buy the old bulbs, then?
They don't understand the savings. The CF bulb costs way more than a conventional bulb to purchase up front, but it costs way less to use the CF bulb. Look at the chart:
Nope. That got overturned in Congress late last year. Looks like the light bulb as we grew up with it is still safe...for the moment.
Why ban it? It works, right?
Sure it works, but it doesn't work very well. Ask yourself the question: what do you want the light bulb to do?
I want it to make light. I turn it on, it lights up.
How does it do that?
Um...never really thought about it.
It gets hot. It gets so hot it glows, not just red-hot but white-hot. That's how it works.
And that's why it's so darned hot?
Exactly. But what if you could have the light without the heat?
What about it? Would that be better?
Sure. About three-fourths of the energy emitted by a light bulb is heat, not light. What that means is your light bulb is only about 25% efficient at making electricity into light. That heat is wasted potential, and of course in summertime that means your AC has to work to remove the heat. Using electricity to remove waste heat generated by using other electricity: that's terrible.
We can do better than that. A compact fluorescent lamp - CF for short - gives off about the same amount of light, but only needs 30% of the electricity. Where you need 100 watts of power to make a bright light with an old-fashioned, hot incandescent bulb, you can get the same light from a CF lamp that uses only 30 watts of power. CF lamps get warm, but nowhere near as hot as an incandescent. That 70 watts you don't use doesn't have to get thrown back outside, either.
That's a big savings. Why would anyone ever buy the old bulbs, then?
They don't understand the savings. The CF bulb costs way more than a conventional bulb to purchase up front, but it costs way less to use the CF bulb. Look at the chart:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
10,000 hours worth of incandescent bulbs costs only $1.86, whereas 10,000 hours worth of CF bulbs costs $2.24. You save 38 cents. Of course, in that time you also replace the incandescent bulb ten times. The CF lamp just keeps going. That isn't the part that people see, though. What they see is that a 16-pack of incandescent bulbs costs less than $3.00, while a four-pack of CF lamps is $9.00. That's short-sighted. The four-pack of CF lamps represents 2.5 times as many hours of light as the 16-pack of incandescents.
But let's level the playing field. Compare 10,000 hours of incandescent light to 10,000 hours of CF. In that same amount of time, the incandescent bulbs burn through $72.00 worth of electricity, and the CF lamp uses less than $17.00 worth. You spend a little more for the lamp, but you spend a lot less keeping it lit. that's where the savings lie. And every lamp you replace with a CF gives the same kind of savings for every minute it's lit.
If it's so great, why doesn't the CF go absolutely everywhere?
Because it's not perfect for everything. CF lamps don't like being cold, so you don't replace the bulb in the refrigerator with a CF. They don't do well being switched on and off all the time, either. Neither do incandescent bulbs, for that matter. For either of these applications, you might do better with the LED.
I've seen those in the store. Pretty expensive. Are they that much better than the CF lamps?
No. In fact, they're not quite as good.
Then why even bother?
Because they're getting better. When CFs were brand new and still $30 for a single bulb, I bought a couple. It cost a lot but somebody's got to take the plunge and see whether it's worth the trouble. It is, and CFs are here to stay...and now that lots of people are buying them, the price has plummeted. LEDs are still new and not quite up to par with CFs, but they're getting better all the time. Soon we'll see LED lamps that are even more efficient than CF lamps. And as more people buy them, their price will come down, too.
LED lamps function just fine when cold. Switch them on and off all day long, it doesn't affect them at all. And where a CF lamp might last 10,000 hours, the LED could easily go 50,000 hours. They really do keep going and going. You could put an LED lamp in your refrigerator and never replace it again, even if you keep the fridge for the rest of your life.
When CFs were new and expensive, commentators recommended putting them in fixtures that were hard to get to, so the convenience of not having to do that difficult replacement would offset the higher price. Well, LEDs are even more convenient and again, if you have a fixture that's a real bear to change, maybe that's where your LEDs should go first.
I have a bunch of LED floodlights in some ceiling fixtures...a ceiling that is 35 feet high! I have to rent a telescoping lift to get to these fixtures. But with a 50,000-hour life, I may not have to change those lamps again until 2020. That makes the high cost a whole lot easier to swallow, since renting the lift is $200 and I used to have to do it every year. As far as those ceiling fixtures go, the energy savings is a bonus, I really wanted to avoid having to rent that lift. This way I dodge $1600 worth of lift rental. That's a savings no matter how you slice it, in spite of the light bulbs costing $40 each.
So it all really just comes down to money, doesn't it?
Doesn't everything? You can buy cheap but buy over and over, or you can buy expensive and not have to buy again for a long time. Savings right now vs. savings over the long run. These can be kind of subtle and you have to sit down and do a little math to see where and how the savings add up...and they do add up.
Plus it saves on air conditioning...
Exactly! You're seeing how the effects can snowball. Not having to rent a lift for eight years is going to save me a lot more than the $600 cost of the LED lamps. It's way more expensive than $8.00 for regular bulbs, but the bulbs aren't where the savings lie. Look at all the costs associated with lighting and that's how you see where there are places to trim costs.
But there will always be a place for the wasteful old incandescent bulb. There's one place where nothing else will do.
Really? Where's that?
In the oven. LEDs can't handle heat; CFs don't handle it well either. But the old-fashioned, one-step-up-from-fire incandescent does its thing by getting hot. Heat is what it does best, like being the heating element inside the old Easy Bake Oven. In fact, the hotter the oven is, the better and more efficient the incandescent bulb becomes.
That's it for today.
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Vacation and Coming Home
We do it all the time. We go on vacation, we're away from home for a few days or more, and when we finally tumble back into the home place, we look at ourselves and say, "I'm so glad to be back."
Is this the whole purpose of vacation? Is the unstated goal to actually make you miss your regular digs? Because that's how it works out for me every time.
Don't get me wrong: when I go somewhere for vacation, I go someplace I like. I visit my folks in the DC area, I've made the extreme treks to Minnesota and Massachusetts to visit even more far-flung relations. It may not sound extreme to you, but I can't afford airfare: it's a long drive to Minnesota from Tennessee, two whole days of driving. Before you even get anywhere, you're ready for the trip to be over.
Then you get to see Grandma, and it's worth it.
And then it's two more days driving, to get home again.
Sweetie just suggested a pretty good vacation: three days of staying home. We've done the "staycation" before and been really happy with it, but this would change things just a tad: not three days in a row. A Monday, Wednesday, Friday on the same week. Kids go off to class and we sleep in. We're not gone from work for a big block of time, so there isn't a huge backlog of phone messages to contend with at the end of it. Lord knows I tremble at the thought of taking an entire week away from work; three days is rough enough. Three days, each day separated by a day on, shouldn't be too bad.
What did we do this time? We got to the cabin, soaked in the hot tub, admired the view, and read our books. That's pretty much it. Not a lot of hiking, precious little shopping, just sitting back and relaxing.
I can do that at home. It's cheaper. I think I'll do that next time.
Is this the whole purpose of vacation? Is the unstated goal to actually make you miss your regular digs? Because that's how it works out for me every time.
Don't get me wrong: when I go somewhere for vacation, I go someplace I like. I visit my folks in the DC area, I've made the extreme treks to Minnesota and Massachusetts to visit even more far-flung relations. It may not sound extreme to you, but I can't afford airfare: it's a long drive to Minnesota from Tennessee, two whole days of driving. Before you even get anywhere, you're ready for the trip to be over.
Then you get to see Grandma, and it's worth it.
And then it's two more days driving, to get home again.
Sweetie just suggested a pretty good vacation: three days of staying home. We've done the "staycation" before and been really happy with it, but this would change things just a tad: not three days in a row. A Monday, Wednesday, Friday on the same week. Kids go off to class and we sleep in. We're not gone from work for a big block of time, so there isn't a huge backlog of phone messages to contend with at the end of it. Lord knows I tremble at the thought of taking an entire week away from work; three days is rough enough. Three days, each day separated by a day on, shouldn't be too bad.
What did we do this time? We got to the cabin, soaked in the hot tub, admired the view, and read our books. That's pretty much it. Not a lot of hiking, precious little shopping, just sitting back and relaxing.
I can do that at home. It's cheaper. I think I'll do that next time.
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Thinking About Cars: Toyota Prius
Full disclosure: I don't have a Prius.
When the Prius was first introduced as a 1997 model it slotted, size-wise, somewhere around the Corolla. At a glance it sharply resembled the Echo of approximately the same time but in fact the first-gen Prius was its own model.
According to press clippings at the time Toyota took a bath on each one, and they didn't sell very well. The good sales were coming, however.
The first-gen Prius went through a very mild refreshing, then Toyota really pulled off a big reveal. While they had been quietly pushing their hybrid technology in a conventional, stubby sedan, they had been developing a wedgy, sleek car that would maximize the car's mileage by taking every advantage it could. This was cagey thinking. By first getting the public used to the notion of a car that wasn't always "on," but yet was always ready, Toyota was able to fight half the battle they would need to wage in order to get the Prius to really deliver on its promise. In order to really produce at the super efficient level, Toyota needed to get the aerodynamics under control in ways the first-generation model could never even approach.
The second-gen Prius introduced in 2003 was larger in every dimension, heavier, much more powerful and paradoxically much more fuel efficient than the model it replaced. The main reason was its singular shape. Where the first Prius was obviously shaped like a car, the new Prius was shaped rather more like a torpedo. The nose rises in one smooth curve from the grille to the roof, and then down in a classic Kammback shape that ends in an abrupt squared-off tail. Where the first model held four adults, the new one was rated for five.
With its otherworldly shape, here finally was a car of the future. The world didn't come to an end with the Y2K bug, so it seemed to be safe to invest in a futuristic ride. Unlike the first generation Prius, the second generation, also known by its chassis code XW20, sold pretty well.
This, the XW20, is the model I have access to. It's fairly roomy inside if you keep your eyes closed, but once you open them you see just how much detail the interior volume measurements glosses over. The top of the windshield crowds unpleasantly close. The rear view is divided by a large dark bar where the shallow slope of the rear window drops to become the cliff-like back end. The window sills are high in relation to the car's overall height, which I think is partly predicated by side intrusion beams in the doors. The steering wheel is oddly low, go-kart small, and cannot be adjusted to make it better. It can be adjusted - I can send it lower.
The dashboard is an acre and a half of matte grey plastic. The windshield that is so claustrophobically close at my eyebrow level falls away and away until, even leaning forward in the seat, I cannot reach it with my outstretched fingers. The view forward is pretty good.
The view to the front quarters is almost zero. There are gigantic A-pillars framing the windshield, yielding the effect of driving in a kind of tunnel. It's nothing you can't adapt to, but it's a thing. You notice it, and you don't stop noticing it.
The second-gen Prius cannot be driven smoothly. Let me back that up: I have taken to heart the wisdom of no less a driving authority than Jackie Stewart, who won so many races so convincingly that I can't help but take his words with some confidence. Jackie espouses smoothness in driving; a mediocre car driven smoothly will outperform a good car driven roughly.
The Prius, in handling, is a mediocre car at best. It lurches at odd moments, it responds to the brake pedal not in a linear fashion, but almost a logarithmic fashion. I'm certain some of that has to do with the regenerative braking feature of the hybrid drivetrain, but it's far from intuitive and requires constant finessing to keep the ride from becoming uncomfortable.
Since it introduced this car, Toyota has graced the world with the new XW30, the third-generation Prius. I haven't had the privilege of driving this one but I'm assuming it can't be too awful. Again, Toyota violated preconceived truths of vehicle efficiency by making this one larger again, more powerful again, heavier and somehow, more fuel efficient. Not having driven one however, I can't say whether it's a pleasant ride.
While worldwide sales of the Prius and its newly available stablemates - the larger, almost wagonlike Prius V and the tiny city runabout Prius c - are good, it's worth remembering that good fuel economy doesn't have to come with NASA-level technology. With a few smart modifications, you can have a VW Beetle, the old air-cooled one, that will do an honest 38mpg all day in California traffic. That's keeping up with traffic, 65-70mph, not dawdling along at some unrealistic crawl. In fact the modifications make a much more powerful, easier-to-drive Beetle. Interesting how that paradox keeps popping up, more power yielding better mileage. It's all in the modifications.
And since you're making smart modifications, you can probably do something about the VW's ride while you're at it.
Monday, January 9, 2012
Irony in the News
Drug Charges, No Kidding?
A Wisconsin guy going by the unlikely name of Beezow Doo-Doo Zopittybop-Bop-Bop is in custody under charges of drug possession, among other things. None of those other things include his wacky name, which he's only had since last October. One wonders, if perhaps Mr. Zoppitybop-Bop-Bop had been required to pee into a cup when turning his name change papers, whether he might have been charged for drug possession at that time as well.
Perfectly Safe!
Zambia's Minister of Tourism Guvin Lubinda assures the world that bungee jumping is perfectly safe, usually. Naturally such pronouncements are never given without reason, in this case a feeble attempt to deny reality. I've thought about bungee jumping a couple of times, but it's one of those things that my life insurance policy mentions in very clear language. Clear language that says "you're not covered for this."
No One Hates Iranians Like Iran Hates Iranians
Iran's government has arrested one of its own, a former US Marine, on charges of espionage. Poor guy was just visiting his parents who are still Iranian citizens.
Think, people. If the guy's parents are still Iranian citizens, does anyone believe for a moment the CIA would employ someone with such a compromising background to operate as an intelligence operative? Highly doubtful. Obviously having someone with in-country background would be very good, but he's also got too big a wedge that the opposition could bring to bear. In fact I'm surprised he was accepted as a US Marine.
Accusing and convicting him in a kangaroo court of espionage, Iran has sentenced the man to death. As if you really wanted to annoy America any further Iran, maybe it's time you listened to your own people?
Fiat's Foot in the Door Has Stepped on Itself
When Chrysler and GM were circling the drain a few short years ago, the US government floated them both huge loans to keep them going. Good idea as it turns out, it worked. But to get out of debt all the sooner, Chrysler welcomed Fiat to come and pick up the reins that were dropped in the disastrous relationship with Daimler. Fiat was looking for an angle to reintroduce its wide range of compact and medium sized cars, so popular in Europe, to the US market. Except in this, the first full year of that nascent relationship, Chrysler's sales are up 36% over the previous 12 months, and Fiat has hit only 40% of its sales goal with its fun and thrifty reimagination of the frisky little 500.
Republicans are Pro Business!
...and Mitt Romney likes being able to fire people. Now to be completely fair he's saying that the quote is being taken out of context. And he's right. In context, he's saying that he likes being able to fire someone "who provides services to me," as in, he has the right to choose service providers if the service they provide isn't acceptable. All of that said, it makes for one hell of a sound bite, Mitt. It makes you sound like a serious jerk.
Fast Food Might Not Be Food
A nutritionist in - where else? - California bought and left a McD's cheeseburger on a shelf for an entire year. Guess what happened?
Nothing.
Now I'll be the first to admit that I've got some low standards about food. My mom has a couple of horror stories, one of which involves discovering all the bacon that had been disappearing from the refrigerator never encountered a frying pan or stove on its path to my belly. I'll eat some things that others might consider dodgy. And I'll also confess that yesterday's McDonald's cheeseburger, sitting in a sack in the car overnight, is perfectly good the next day. Maybe even the day after that. But according to this researcher, her burger on the shelf experiment yielded no results of any kind - the burger still looks, feels and smells like a burger.
My guess is that it just got dried out and doesn't hold enough moisture to support life, but I wouldn't bite into it to test the no-life theory, either. Whip out the microscope lady, and tell us what's going on.
That's it for now.
A Wisconsin guy going by the unlikely name of Beezow Doo-Doo Zopittybop-Bop-Bop is in custody under charges of drug possession, among other things. None of those other things include his wacky name, which he's only had since last October. One wonders, if perhaps Mr. Zoppitybop-Bop-Bop had been required to pee into a cup when turning his name change papers, whether he might have been charged for drug possession at that time as well.
Perfectly Safe!
Zambia's Minister of Tourism Guvin Lubinda assures the world that bungee jumping is perfectly safe, usually. Naturally such pronouncements are never given without reason, in this case a feeble attempt to deny reality. I've thought about bungee jumping a couple of times, but it's one of those things that my life insurance policy mentions in very clear language. Clear language that says "you're not covered for this."
No One Hates Iranians Like Iran Hates Iranians
Iran's government has arrested one of its own, a former US Marine, on charges of espionage. Poor guy was just visiting his parents who are still Iranian citizens.
Think, people. If the guy's parents are still Iranian citizens, does anyone believe for a moment the CIA would employ someone with such a compromising background to operate as an intelligence operative? Highly doubtful. Obviously having someone with in-country background would be very good, but he's also got too big a wedge that the opposition could bring to bear. In fact I'm surprised he was accepted as a US Marine.
Accusing and convicting him in a kangaroo court of espionage, Iran has sentenced the man to death. As if you really wanted to annoy America any further Iran, maybe it's time you listened to your own people?
Fiat's Foot in the Door Has Stepped on Itself
When Chrysler and GM were circling the drain a few short years ago, the US government floated them both huge loans to keep them going. Good idea as it turns out, it worked. But to get out of debt all the sooner, Chrysler welcomed Fiat to come and pick up the reins that were dropped in the disastrous relationship with Daimler. Fiat was looking for an angle to reintroduce its wide range of compact and medium sized cars, so popular in Europe, to the US market. Except in this, the first full year of that nascent relationship, Chrysler's sales are up 36% over the previous 12 months, and Fiat has hit only 40% of its sales goal with its fun and thrifty reimagination of the frisky little 500.
Republicans are Pro Business!
...and Mitt Romney likes being able to fire people. Now to be completely fair he's saying that the quote is being taken out of context. And he's right. In context, he's saying that he likes being able to fire someone "who provides services to me," as in, he has the right to choose service providers if the service they provide isn't acceptable. All of that said, it makes for one hell of a sound bite, Mitt. It makes you sound like a serious jerk.
Fast Food Might Not Be Food
A nutritionist in - where else? - California bought and left a McD's cheeseburger on a shelf for an entire year. Guess what happened?
Nothing.
Now I'll be the first to admit that I've got some low standards about food. My mom has a couple of horror stories, one of which involves discovering all the bacon that had been disappearing from the refrigerator never encountered a frying pan or stove on its path to my belly. I'll eat some things that others might consider dodgy. And I'll also confess that yesterday's McDonald's cheeseburger, sitting in a sack in the car overnight, is perfectly good the next day. Maybe even the day after that. But according to this researcher, her burger on the shelf experiment yielded no results of any kind - the burger still looks, feels and smells like a burger.
My guess is that it just got dried out and doesn't hold enough moisture to support life, but I wouldn't bite into it to test the no-life theory, either. Whip out the microscope lady, and tell us what's going on.
That's it for now.
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
Let's Try This Again: Repair Parts
I had an epiphany this morning, and it seems to bear up under further scrutiny. I was talking to the light of my life, the wife with whom I have shared the last twenty-odd years (very odd!), and offered this little test.
"I think I know how to determine whether something is designed to be repaired versus just used up and thrown away."
"Oh, yes?" She raised the quizzical brow in that just-so way. She does that a lot with me. She's right to do so, because sometimes I'm full of baloney. "And what is that?"
"Look at where it was bought."
The quizzical brow stayed firmly arched. "Say on."
"What do you do when something breaks, that you bought from Wal-Mart?"
"Throw it away. Oh!" She smiled.
"And from Target?"
"Still throw it away, probably..."
"And from Sears?"
"Well, Sears has their own parts depart...ment...Hey, you're onto something."
And there it is. The big box stores like Wal-Mart and Target don't sell parts. They sell merchandise at the lowest possible price. The lowest possible price often precludes such things as design that permits things being opened up, fixed, and put back together again.
Now let's be real: the parts department at Sears doesn't carry parts for such things as the el cheapo alarm clock that was marked down at the end of the aisle. Those are just throwaway items. They're not like they used to be. My mom and dad had an alarm clock that wasn't new when I first took note of it back in 1973, and I think they finally got rid of it sometime around 1998. I'm pretty sure that at some point along the way, the silly thing got repaired once or twice. It got repaired because it was designed to be opened up, repaired and put back together.
Another example. My mom had a vacuum cleaner that I used to ride on, because I was small enough to to not overload its casters. She had it through three houses and an apartment, and didn't get rid of it until MY kids were too big to ride on it. She told me outright that the thing had been repaired a couple of times. It was repaired because it was a Kenmore machine, and she could still get parts for it from Sears.
My wife just brought home a Filter Queen brand vacuum cleaner. She brought it home because two things happened: first, she seems to prefer canister vacs for hard floors. I don't fully understand the rationale there but there it is. The other thing is that the Eureka brand vacuum cleaner we had bought a mere year and a half ago bit the dust.
This Eureka vac was pretty flashy. It had the bright colors that were popularized by Dyson, and the swirly "bagless" design that circulates the grunge and dust where you can see it. It's a show like no other, all that crud whipping around in there, proof positive that your flashy plastic vacuum is working hard and it's so convenient! No bags to change, tools right there with, headlight for peering under stuff, all that jazz. I'd like to point out that these so-called bagless vacs don't have much capacity. They say they're so convenient because you don't have to change out that nasty ol' bag...but they don't talk about how often you're cleaning out that nasty ol' dust cup.
When did I ever want to peer under the furniture? What good is that headlight? I poked the nose of the vacuum under there. If there was something to suck up, the vac got it. If there wasn't, the vac got it anyway. Didn't care to see it.
Well, so we had this Eureka vacuum. Telescoping duster doohickey that sucks itself clean when you put it back in its caddy, pretty cool. "Pet Paw" attachment for cleaning upholstery. Except the duster does a great job of picking up the cobwebs here and redepositing them there, just like every other duster I've ever used. And the Pet Paw, powered by an air motor, bogs down and stops under any kind of reasonable pressure. It doesn't maintain its operating speed unless you just wave it around at the furniture.
The vacuum's beater bar tended to bind up a lot. It only kept working as long as it did because Son #2, determined to get the family's money's worth out of the thing, kept taking it apart, clearing and cleaning the bearings, and putting it back together again. It turns out he's actually pretty good at that, and good thing too - that vacuum needed a lot of help. The vacuum had been his choice, and he was mightily annoyed with it when it started running hot and sounding bad after only six months. He got it running right, as I expected he would, but he wasn't thrilled.
It did it again. And again. And finally last week it finally bound up a bearing and melted the bearing mount. "That's it," he said. "I can't fix that. It's not fixable." Enter the Filter Queen.
The Filter Queen is an old design. You can tell just looking at it that it's old. And it's okay that it's old, because if I wanted to, I could replace every single part on it.
I checked that. It appears to me, checking on the websites that represent companies that sell parts for these things, that you could buy every part needed to build a Filter Queen up from scratch. Motor, blower, hoses, bearings, all of it. It's all there. It's like owning a Kirby vacuum, but a little cheaper.
It doesn't matter that it looks old, either. Vacuums that work can look like H.R. Pufnstuf for all I care, so long as the dirt comes off the floor. When that Eureka stopped working, it wouldn't make any difference to me whether the damned thing was made of solid gold, because it still wouldn't be a working vacuum cleaner, which was what I wanted at the time.
Repair parts are out there for the Eureka Pet Lover with the Power Paw or whatever it's called. But when the bearing mount melts because the bearing got that hot, well, what do you do? For the price of the new housing with its sound bearing mount which I cannot have because it's obsolete and no longer available, plus the price of the new bearing, I got a good used Filter Queen.
The Filter Queen is made of metal. Before it gets hot enough for the bearing mount to melt, the motor will be shooting fire out through its exhaust ports. I'll KNOW it's hot, by golly. And I could build a brand new Filter Queen exactly like this one I have, because all its parts are still available.
It costs more because it's worth more. It costs more because it's designed to be cheaper every day for the rest of its foreseeable life. Like Mom's rugged old Kenmore, like a well-made car with all its bolts and screws and removable things that are designed to be replaced when they wear out, value is one of those things that you really can see. If you can find fasteners that don't take fancy tools to open - plain ol' phillips screwdriver, for instance - you have a chance at keeping things going.
Wal-Mart doesn't have a parts department. If you want repair parts for one of those cheap, flashy vacuums they sell, you have to go online and hunt them down. Granted, I would have to do that with the Filter Queen. But I don't think Filter Queen has obsoleted a part in my lifetime. I have some confidence of finding whatever I need for a good long time.
Like I was talking about with my Volvo. If I need parts, Volvo made that car for a long time. Parts are out there. The Volvo "red block" engine is sturdy, tough, and got bolted into everything including boats and I think some forklifts. I have a shot at finding parts virtually anywhere. And the body was made with only minor changes throughout the 200-series production run, so parts are available there, too.
The old adage is, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." But it should go on: "But make it so you can fix it when it does break."
That reminds me. I have to get the icemaker working again. I wonder what that's going to take. I'll bet I can find the parts at Sears.
"I think I know how to determine whether something is designed to be repaired versus just used up and thrown away."
"Oh, yes?" She raised the quizzical brow in that just-so way. She does that a lot with me. She's right to do so, because sometimes I'm full of baloney. "And what is that?"
"Look at where it was bought."
The quizzical brow stayed firmly arched. "Say on."
"What do you do when something breaks, that you bought from Wal-Mart?"
"Throw it away. Oh!" She smiled.
"And from Target?"
"Still throw it away, probably..."
"And from Sears?"
"Well, Sears has their own parts depart...ment...Hey, you're onto something."
And there it is. The big box stores like Wal-Mart and Target don't sell parts. They sell merchandise at the lowest possible price. The lowest possible price often precludes such things as design that permits things being opened up, fixed, and put back together again.
Now let's be real: the parts department at Sears doesn't carry parts for such things as the el cheapo alarm clock that was marked down at the end of the aisle. Those are just throwaway items. They're not like they used to be. My mom and dad had an alarm clock that wasn't new when I first took note of it back in 1973, and I think they finally got rid of it sometime around 1998. I'm pretty sure that at some point along the way, the silly thing got repaired once or twice. It got repaired because it was designed to be opened up, repaired and put back together.
Another example. My mom had a vacuum cleaner that I used to ride on, because I was small enough to to not overload its casters. She had it through three houses and an apartment, and didn't get rid of it until MY kids were too big to ride on it. She told me outright that the thing had been repaired a couple of times. It was repaired because it was a Kenmore machine, and she could still get parts for it from Sears.
My wife just brought home a Filter Queen brand vacuum cleaner. She brought it home because two things happened: first, she seems to prefer canister vacs for hard floors. I don't fully understand the rationale there but there it is. The other thing is that the Eureka brand vacuum cleaner we had bought a mere year and a half ago bit the dust.
This Eureka vac was pretty flashy. It had the bright colors that were popularized by Dyson, and the swirly "bagless" design that circulates the grunge and dust where you can see it. It's a show like no other, all that crud whipping around in there, proof positive that your flashy plastic vacuum is working hard and it's so convenient! No bags to change, tools right there with, headlight for peering under stuff, all that jazz. I'd like to point out that these so-called bagless vacs don't have much capacity. They say they're so convenient because you don't have to change out that nasty ol' bag...but they don't talk about how often you're cleaning out that nasty ol' dust cup.
When did I ever want to peer under the furniture? What good is that headlight? I poked the nose of the vacuum under there. If there was something to suck up, the vac got it. If there wasn't, the vac got it anyway. Didn't care to see it.
Well, so we had this Eureka vacuum. Telescoping duster doohickey that sucks itself clean when you put it back in its caddy, pretty cool. "Pet Paw" attachment for cleaning upholstery. Except the duster does a great job of picking up the cobwebs here and redepositing them there, just like every other duster I've ever used. And the Pet Paw, powered by an air motor, bogs down and stops under any kind of reasonable pressure. It doesn't maintain its operating speed unless you just wave it around at the furniture.
The vacuum's beater bar tended to bind up a lot. It only kept working as long as it did because Son #2, determined to get the family's money's worth out of the thing, kept taking it apart, clearing and cleaning the bearings, and putting it back together again. It turns out he's actually pretty good at that, and good thing too - that vacuum needed a lot of help. The vacuum had been his choice, and he was mightily annoyed with it when it started running hot and sounding bad after only six months. He got it running right, as I expected he would, but he wasn't thrilled.
It did it again. And again. And finally last week it finally bound up a bearing and melted the bearing mount. "That's it," he said. "I can't fix that. It's not fixable." Enter the Filter Queen.
The Filter Queen is an old design. You can tell just looking at it that it's old. And it's okay that it's old, because if I wanted to, I could replace every single part on it.
I checked that. It appears to me, checking on the websites that represent companies that sell parts for these things, that you could buy every part needed to build a Filter Queen up from scratch. Motor, blower, hoses, bearings, all of it. It's all there. It's like owning a Kirby vacuum, but a little cheaper.
It doesn't matter that it looks old, either. Vacuums that work can look like H.R. Pufnstuf for all I care, so long as the dirt comes off the floor. When that Eureka stopped working, it wouldn't make any difference to me whether the damned thing was made of solid gold, because it still wouldn't be a working vacuum cleaner, which was what I wanted at the time.
Repair parts are out there for the Eureka Pet Lover with the Power Paw or whatever it's called. But when the bearing mount melts because the bearing got that hot, well, what do you do? For the price of the new housing with its sound bearing mount which I cannot have because it's obsolete and no longer available, plus the price of the new bearing, I got a good used Filter Queen.
The Filter Queen is made of metal. Before it gets hot enough for the bearing mount to melt, the motor will be shooting fire out through its exhaust ports. I'll KNOW it's hot, by golly. And I could build a brand new Filter Queen exactly like this one I have, because all its parts are still available.
It costs more because it's worth more. It costs more because it's designed to be cheaper every day for the rest of its foreseeable life. Like Mom's rugged old Kenmore, like a well-made car with all its bolts and screws and removable things that are designed to be replaced when they wear out, value is one of those things that you really can see. If you can find fasteners that don't take fancy tools to open - plain ol' phillips screwdriver, for instance - you have a chance at keeping things going.
Wal-Mart doesn't have a parts department. If you want repair parts for one of those cheap, flashy vacuums they sell, you have to go online and hunt them down. Granted, I would have to do that with the Filter Queen. But I don't think Filter Queen has obsoleted a part in my lifetime. I have some confidence of finding whatever I need for a good long time.
Like I was talking about with my Volvo. If I need parts, Volvo made that car for a long time. Parts are out there. The Volvo "red block" engine is sturdy, tough, and got bolted into everything including boats and I think some forklifts. I have a shot at finding parts virtually anywhere. And the body was made with only minor changes throughout the 200-series production run, so parts are available there, too.
The old adage is, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." But it should go on: "But make it so you can fix it when it does break."
That reminds me. I have to get the icemaker working again. I wonder what that's going to take. I'll bet I can find the parts at Sears.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)